Re: XFS?

[Filip Van Raemdonck <filipvr@xs4all.be>]

On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 01:22:22PM +0300, Ivan Ivanov wrote:
> 
> I think that it is not fair to insist for merging of XFS only. There ara
> many other projects that are of bigger value for linux then iet another
> filesystem - RSBAC,OpenMosix,LSM,HTree and more.

And who are most likely far more intrusive than XFS is currently, or have
other issues. [1]

> Some people like Linus, Alan, Marchelo etc. have the responsibility to
> provide users with a usable, stable kernel.

So they mark XFS experimental, and unless the user configures for
experimental features to be asked for they won't even notice their presence.

> I am not an expert, just a sysadmin, and I am testing XFS since kernel
> 2.4.6 ( I am writing this mail from a test machine with kernel 2.4.18
> and XFS root filesystem ), and I also think that XFS is not ready for
> production ( I lost some unimportant files after a crash yesterday ).

So, you are not using ext2 then either? Since that can loose files, too, on
a crash. (I've actually even once seen a whole ext2 partition disappear
after a crash. Same for reiserfs, BTW)

Any fs can have bugs. Even while ext2 is indeed more likely to be the most
tested, it too can bite you sometimes. [1]


Regards,

Filip

[1] Actually I've had problems with dma timeouts resulting in ide hangs on
    an ext2 system last week, and it too managed to lose a few files. Sure,
    fsck picked up most of them, and none were critical, but it does prove
    my point well enough.

-- 
We have joy, we have fun,
we have Linux on our Sun.
	-- Andreas Tille